DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The double patent rejection was not argued, and based on the amendments, the instant application is still rejected with a statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection. Although amended, US 11982643 still fully encompasses the scope of instant claim 1. The same rational is applied for instant claim 10 and claim 6 from US 11982643. The double patenting rejection is maintained.
As to the 35 USC 101, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant has amended instant claims 1 and 6 to now include more structure, however this is generically recited. Amended the claims to add a piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric wafer sensor) and an acoustic testing device. Both are generic structures and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The prior art, Zalameda, teaches thin-film transducers which convert the acoustic energy into an electrical signal. Therefore this structure reads on “via at least one piezoelectric wafer active sensor (PWAS) that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive acoustic emission signals from the PWAS”. This can be seen in Figure 2A and [0023].
As to the limitation “via the acoustic testing device via post processing of an acoustic emission signal signature by the foreign object impact event”, Figure 2A teaches element 25 which is monitoring device to which the transducers, 22, are connected to. Also see paragraphs 0023 to 0025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6, specifically the limitation “different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly discovered prior art, Stothers US 8060319, will be used in combination with the previously cited prior art.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 11982643, hereafter known as the Giurgiutiu reference. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The instant application claims “Amended) An acoustic emission based structural health monitoring method comprising: obtaining an acoustic emission signal, via at least one Piezoelectric Wafer Active sensor (PWAS) that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive acoustic emission signals from the PWAS, from an impact event on a composite structure; analyzing the acoustic emission signal via the acoustic testing device via post processing of an acoustic emission signal signature generated by the foreign object impact event; and differentiating between different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure.” Giurgiutiu teaches, in claim 1, the same limitations plus more, resulting in a narrower and more in depth claim limitation. Therefore claim 1 of the Giurgiutiu reference fully encompasses the scope of the claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of Giurgiutiu reference includes the limitations “obtaining an acoustic emission signal, via at least one Piezoelectric Wafer Active sensor (PWAS) that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive acoustic emission signals from the PWAS, from an impact event on a composite structure”, “analyzing the acoustic emission signal” and “differentiating between whether the impact event caused internal damage to the composite structure or was a benign impact causing no damage via the acoustic testing device”.
Claims 2-9 do not remedy the issues discussed above and are also encompassed by scope of the claims of the Giurgiutiu reference.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 6 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 11982643, hereafter known as the Giurgiutiu reference. The instant application claims “A method for detecting damage in a composite structure comprising: attaching at least one piezoelectric sensor that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive at least one acoustic emission signal from the piezoelectric wafer active sensor to a composite structure; generating an impact event on the composite structure; capturing, via the acoustic testing device, at least one acoustic emission signal generated from the impact event on the composite structure wherein the at least one acoustic emission signal comprises at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum generated by the foreign impact event and analyzing, via the acoustic testing device, the captured at least one acoustic emission signal at least one acoustic emission waveform, and at least one frequency spectrum via post processing; and3 v2 differentiating, via the acoustic testing device, between different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure.” The Giurgiutiu reference teaches “attaching at least one piezoelectric wafer active sensor that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive at least one acoustic emission signal from the piezoelectric wafer active sensor to a composite structure”, “generating an impact event on the composite structure via applying an external load to the composite structure via a foreign object to create a foreign object impact event”, “capturing, via the acoustic testing device, at least one acoustic emission signal generated from the impact event on the composite structure” and “and analyzing, via the acoustic testing device, the captured at least one acoustic emission signal, at least one acoustic emission waveform”. Claim 6 of the Giurgiutiu reference fully encompasses the scope of instant claim 10.
Claims 11-20 do not remedy the issues discussed above and are also encompassed by scope of the claims of the Giurgiutiu reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s)a method of structural health monitoring. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed towards mere data gathering and mental processes such as visually analyzing captured data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite any meaningful structural elements.
Claim 1 teaches “An acoustic emission based structural health monitoring method comprising: obtaining an acoustic emission signal, via at least one Piezoelectric Wafer Active sensor (PWAS) that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive acoustic emission signals from the PWAS (the inclusion of this structure is generic and is taught by the Zalameda reference. It does not amount to being significantly more than the abstract idea), from an impact event on a composite structure (this step is mere data gathering); analyzing the acoustic emission signal (this step is a mental process since it only involves visually analyzing captured data) via the acoustic testing device via post processing of an acoustic emission signal signature generated by the foreign object impact event (this step is a mental process since it only involves visually analyzing captured data. The inclusion of this structure is generic and is taught by the Zalameda reference. It does not amount to being significantly more than the abstract idea) and differentiating between different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure (This is a mental process since it only involves visually analyzing data to determine a difference. See MPEP 2106, Section III, Part 1; “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).”
Under Step 2A, prong one, the claims recites a mental process which is an abstract idea. Under Step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed towards steps of data gathering which do not amount of significantly more and a mental process that can be performed by the human mind.
Under step 2B, none of the elements recited are unconventional therefore they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-9, do not remedy the issues in claim 1, therefore these dependent claims are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 teaches “A method for detecting damage in a composite structure comprising: attaching at least one piezoelectric sensor that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive at least one acoustic emission signal from the piezoelectric wafer active sensor to a composite structure (This is a generic structure, which can be seen in US 20170052150); generating an impact event on the composite structure (This is a generic step as seen in US 20170052150); capturing, via the acoustic testing device, at least one acoustic emission signal generated from the impact event on the composite structure wherein the at least one acoustic emission signal comprises at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum generated by the foreign impact event (this step is mere data gathering); and analyzing, via the acoustic testing device, the captured at least one acoustic emission signal at least one acoustic emission waveform, and at least one frequency spectrum via post processing (the analysis of data, especially visually displayed data is a mental step); and differentiating, via the acoustic testing device, between different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure (This is a mental process since it only involves visually analyzing data to determine a difference. See MPEP 2106, Section III, Part 1; “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).”
Under Step 2A, prong one, the claims recites a mental process which is an abstract idea. Under Step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed towards steps of data gathering which do not amount of significantly more and a mental process that can be performed by the human mind.
Under step 2B, none of the elements recited are unconventional therefore they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 11-20, do not remedy the issues in claim 1, therefore these dependent claims are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6-10, 14, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalameda US 20170052150 in view of Stothers US 8060319.
As to claim 1, Zalameda teaches “An acoustic emission based structural health monitoring method (Abstract) comprising: obtaining an acoustic emission signal, ia at least one Piezoelectric Wafer Active sensor (PWAS) that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive acoustic emission signals from the PWAS (Figure 2A, 22 is a thin-film transducer which reads on a piezoelectric sensor since it convert acoustic energy into electrical signals for analysis. Elements 22 are connected to testing device 25, which analyzes the signals to determine the load, damage and location), from an impact event on a composite structure (Abstract; [0032]; Figures 5) ; analyzing the acoustic emission signal (Figure 2A teaches that the signals from the acoustic and load sensors are monitored, therefore they are analyzed) via the acoustic testing device via post processing of an acoustic emission signal signature generated by the foreign object impact event (Figure 2A, 25).” Zalameda does not explicitly teach that the acoustic testing device can differentiate types of damage based on the received input, although it is established in the background section that this process does exist, see [0006].
Stothers teaches “differentiating, via the acoustic testing device, between different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure (Column 3, lines 44-47; Column 4, lines 7-16).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Stothers with Zalameda. It is known to use the acquired frequency spectrum to determine the type, size and location of damage on a subject under test. This allows for the user to understand the severity of the damage. Having a system to differentiate between different types of damage aids in optimizing the system.
As to claim 2, Zalameda teaches “predicting future behavior of the composite structure based on the acoustic emission signal (Abstract; [0009]; [0010]; [0024] and [0031]).”
As to claim 3, Zalameda teaches “predicting crack propagation in the composite structure (Abstract; [0009]; [0010]; [0024]; [0031]; [0038]).”
As to claim 5, Zalameda teaches “wherein damage during the impact event is indicated by the irregularities observed in a force-time curve of the impact event ([0010]; [0023]; [0033]. The prior art teaches that the material can be monitored in real-time and also uses time for determining the structural health. A cluster of impacts over a time period is observed and the prediction model utilizes this to determine time to failure for the material).”
As to claims 6 and 15, Zalameda teaches “determining a force-time history ([0032]), displacement-time history ([0029] and claim 9) and energy-time history ([0038]) for the impact event.” Zalameda does not explicitly teach “velocity-time history”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine velocity-time history since Zalameda teaches “Defects can affect the velocity and waveform mode of propagation of acoustic emission signals” in [0046]. It is known that time of flight can be measured and changes in time of flight can be indicative of damages to the material the signal is traveling in. Based on this and common knowledge of utilizing time of flight, one could determine velocity-time history.
As to claim 7, Zalameda teaches “wherein the acoustic emission signal due to impact hit has a low frequency content with high amplitude at a region below 200 kHz ([0038]).”
As to claim 8, Zalameda teaches “wherein the acoustic emission signal due to irreversible damage has a high-frequency content in the range of 300 to 500 kHz ([0038]. Assigning the type of damage based on the frequency is subjective and the processor in the prior art is capable of classifying types of damages based on the measured signal).”
As to claim 9, Zalameda teaches “estimating the size, location, shape and extent of impact damage by analyzing the acoustic emission signals received from the impact event ([0044] to [0046]; Figures 5A and 5B. This prior art teaches that the location can be determined using a coordinate system. The intensity can be determined by the measured energy at a given location at a given time. Based on this an estimation of the size and extend can be determined).”
As to claim 10, Zalameda teaches “A method for detecting damage in a composite structure comprising (Abstract): attaching at least one piezoelectric sensor that forms part of an acoustic testing device configured to receive at least one acoustic emission signal from the piezoelectric wafer active sensor to a composite structure (Figure 2A, 22; [0023]); generating an impact event on the composite structure ([0032]); capturing, via the acoustic testing device, at least one acoustic emission signal generated from the impact event on the composite structure wherein the at least one acoustic emission signal comprises at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum generated by the foreign impact event (Figure 2A, 22 and 25; [0023] to [0025]); and analyzing, via the acoustic testing device, the captured at least one acoustic emission signal at least one acoustic emission waveform, and at least one frequency spectrum via post processing (Figure 5; Figure 3, step S55; [0042] and [0043]).” Zalameda does not explicitly teach that the acoustic testing device can differentiate types of damage based on the received input, although it is established in the background section that this process does exist, see [0006].
Stothers teaches “differentiating, via the acoustic testing device, between different types of failure modes or damages via analyzing the at least one acoustic emission waveform and at least one frequency spectrum to differentiate between differing acoustic emission signatures generated via fiber cracking, fiber breaking, fiber pushout, matrix microcracking, debonding and/or delamination caused by the foreign object impact event on the composite structure (Column 3, lines 44-47; Column 4, lines 7-16).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Stothers with Zalameda. It is known to use the acquired frequency spectrum to determine the type, size and location of damage on a subject under test. This allows for the user to understand the severity of the damage. Having a system to differentiate between different types of damage aids in optimizing the system.
As to claim 14, Zalameda teaches “wherein damage during the impact event is indicated by irregularities observed in a force-time curve of the impact event ([0023] teaches that the acoustic sensor measure the acoustic response from possible damages. When a certain profile is detected it can be an indication of damage, which is the same as the sensor measuring irregularities).”
As to claim 18, Zalameda teaches “analyzing a shape of a force- time history plot of the impact event to determine if damage has occurred ([0049], [0050]; Figure 5 shows acoustic emission data from impacts. These are used to predict where and when a failure could occur).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalameda US 20170052150 and Stothers US 8060319 in view of Van Tooren US 20170168021.
As to claim 11, Zalameda does not explicitly teach the material or type of piezoelectric sensor although using one type over another only involves routine skill in the art.
Van Tooren teaches “wherein the at least one piezoelectric sensor comprises a piezoelectric wafer active sensor ([0059]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Van Tooren with Zalameda. Using one type of sensor over another depends on the application and location of said sensor. Therefore realizing which sensor to use only requires routine skill in the art.
As to claim 12, Van Tooren teaches “wherein the at least one piezoelectric sensor is attached to the composite structure at a location (Figure 1).” The prior arts do not explicitly teach “corresponding to a fiber orientation angle in a stacking sequence of the composite structure.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to place the sensor at an optimal location where the user wishes to measure the stress/strain/impact force. It is well known to place sensors in locations that are prone of structural health issues.
As to claim 13, Van Tooren teaches “generating a specific size of impact damage on the composite structure via using a specific mass weight dropped from a predetermined height to obtain the specific size of impact damage on the composite structure generating a specific size of impact damage on the composite structure via using a specific mass weight dropped 51 42827701 vifrom a predetermined height to obtain the specific size of impact damage on the composite structure ([0074] and [0075]. These citations teach a hammer that is used to generate an impact. This hammer is connected to a force sensor and the hammer can be triggered by a trigger signal. This is the equivalent of dropping a weight, of various sizes and heights, to generate the impact force).”
As to claim 19, Zalameda in combination with Van Tooren teaches “using energy-time history to demonstrate a percentage of impact energy that is absorbed by the composite structure when damage occurs to the composite structure ([0038] teaches that the total energy is known, monitored over time and is used to determine and identify cracks, therefore this prior art teaches energy-time history).”
Van Tooren teaches an impact hammer which can be triggered and set to a force. It is known in the art that energy is absorbed by a material and not 100% of said energy is reflected. Based on the teachings of Van Tooren and Zalamdea, one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the energy absorbed by measuring the energy measured at the acoustic sensor and compare it to the energy at the impact site using the built-in force sensor in Van Tooren. Although this step is not explicitly stated, one of ordinary skill in the art has the data to make the comparison. This allows the user to determine how much energy is absorbed at certain impacts.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalameda US 20170052150 and Stothers US 8060319 in view of Jahanbin US 20180340858.
As to claim 16, Zalameda teaches “ultrasonic testing scans of a pristine composite structure with the composite structure that underwent impact damage to determine size and shape of the impact damage ([0005] teaches that ultrasonic SHM methods are common in the art; [0048] teaches X-ray and ultrasound imaging testing).” Zalameda does not explicitly teach “comparing ultrasonic testing scans”
Jahanbin teaches “comparing ultrasonic testing scans ([0014] teaches comparing measured ultrasonic scans to reference data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Jahanbin with Zalameda. It is a part of the scientific process to compare measured data to reference data. Differences between the 2 sets of data can be indicative of damage, as seen in SHM testing. This is a well known and obvious step in the process of detecting damage of a component. Zalameda teaches that ultrasonic imaging is known and commonly used, therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to compare acoustic measured data to reference scans.
As to claim 17, Jahanbin teaches “comprising comparing A-scan, B-scan, and C-scan ultrasonic scans ([0094] teaches B-scans, however, it is known that ultrasonic imaging includes, A, B and C scans).”
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalameda US 20170052150 and Stothers US 8060319 in view of Pickens US 5507185.
As to claim 20, Zalameda teaches that ultrasonic imaging techniques are known in the art but the prior art does not explicitly teach how it is used to characterize damage.
Pickens teaches “utilizing ultrasound scans to characterize damage size, shape, and location (Column 1, lines 15-25).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Pickens with Zalameda. Using imaging techniques is known in the art as seen in both Pickens and Zalameda. Using this allows the user to ascertain the extent of the damage on an element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TARUN SINHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855